While the precautions are no doubt understandable given the preciousness of human life, a good question to ask is, is the Indian media resorting to self-censorship in order to present a better face? In the process of doing so, is it allowing itself to be told what to do and what not to do, thus depriving viewers of what they should know?

If all this passes muster in the name of “self-restraint”, where does this self-restraint vanish on normal days? Is the NBA’s call for self-restraint now an admission of the utter lack of it on regular days?

Was the killing and mayhem that followed the demolition of the Babri masjid by Hindutva goons, while BJP leaders watched in 1992, squarely a fault of the media? Conversely, if the media weren’t around for this and other stories, would India be a land of milk and honey?

2 Comments

Decorous journalism demands that the media adopt such rules in all of their coverage. Clearly, sensation-mongering has been the bane of India’s news media.

In the United States, for example, 9/11 collapse coverage was shown respectfully and in a measured fashion, and always within context. So was war coverage. In India, on the other hand, many channels ran the Babri collapse and the Nityananda video repeatedly, and with jhinchak music… could they have been any more unethical or tasteless? The channels brazenly insulted not only their audiences but every journalistic norm.

Well. Nothing is ‘squarely’ the fault of media. As everyone is aware Indian media have a heart of gold! Media bodies are practically non existent. When they give a wake up call out of the blue, better appreciate it.